Mohinder Singh and Bachan Kaur complainants have filed the present complaint U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the District Social Security Officer, Gurdaspur etc. seeking necessary directions may be issued to the respondents to start/release the old age pension of complainants and also issued directions to the respondents to also pay the previous pension amount w.e.f. December, 2017 to onwards alongwith interest @ 24% P.A. from the date of due till its realization. The respondents may be further burdened with compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of physical harassment and mental agony and any other relief which this Hon'ble Forum/Commission may deem it fit, may also be granted to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainants are permanent residents of above mentioned village and are old age persons. The complainants cannot do any manual work and have no source of their income. It is further alleged that respondent no.1 has issued old age pension to complainants in the year 2011 vide PLA No. 266583 and 266592 respectively. They both used to receive Rs.250/- per month and then it was increased to Rs.500/-. They both received pension till 23.10.2017. It is further alleged that they both were drawing the pension from Op.no.3 Bank sent by Op.no.1. The pension A/C number of complainant no.1 is 735 and complainant no.2 is 733. It is further alleged that complainant no.2 have no moveable and immoveable property and complainant no.1 is owner of land measuring 1 Kanal½ Marlas which is joint with the other co-sharers and other co-sharers cultivate the above said land and complainant no.1 is not deriving any income from the above said land. It is further alleged that the act of the respondents to stop the old age pension of the complainants is illegal, null and void against the law and instructions. It is further alleged that the complainants approached the respondents through written application dated 19.09.2018 and requested the respondents to release the old age pension of the complainants but the respondents put the matter pending with one pretext or the other and no action has been taken on the said application and two days back they refused to admit the claim of the complainants. It is further alleged that they both have no source of income and they both are passing their days under starvation. Thus there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, this complaint.

3.       Upon notice opposite party no.1 appeared and filed their written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complainants have not come in this Hon’ble Court with clean hands. They have concealed the material facts from the court and the complainants do not come under the definition of consumer. It is further pleaded that the pension of the complainant was cancelled on report dated 11-12-2017 of CDPO, as per the Jamabandi, the complainant no.1 is owner of the land measuring 3 acres. As per the specification of eligibility of an applicant is upto 2.5 acres land nehari/chahi. It is further pleaded that the complainants as per the Halqa Patwari’s report is owner of the land measuring 3 acres. Hence, on the recommendations of CDPO concerned their old age pension was cancelled. On merits, all other averments made in the complaint have been Denied. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

4.       OP. No 2 &3 did not appear dispite the service of notice and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.02.2019.

5.       Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raghbir Singh, (Ex.C-1) alongwith other documents (Ex.C-2 to Ex. C-9).

6.       Smt. Anita Kumari, Clerk for the opposite party no.1 has filed document (Ex.OP-1/1).

7.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

8.       Written arguments not filed by the parties.

9.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for the parties.

10.     It is admitted fact that complainants are receiving old age pension from the opposite party and the said pension was discontinued by the opposite parties and the present complaint has been filled for restoration of the pension. On the other hand, the representative of opposite party no 1 has argued that as per Consumer Protection Act 2019 definition of consumer has been given according to which the complainant does not fall in the definition of consumer. As per section 2(7) “consumer” means any person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any  commercial purpose. As per above referred definition, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider and accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Whereas on the other hand, counsel for complainant has relied upon order of Hon’ble Tamil Naidu State Commission, Chennai reported in 2003 CPJ- 34.As per this judgment, the complainants have paid Rs.1000/- per year for availing scheme and was held entitled to receive compensation. We have gone through the order referred by the counsel for complainant, however, in the referred order, the complainants in that case had paid Rs.1000/- premium to the opposite parties but in the present case the complainants have not paid any amount for availing services of the opposite parties. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case, this Commission is of the view that complainant does not fall in the definition of consumer accordingly the present complaint is dismissed.  However the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court of law for redressal of his grievances.

11.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

12.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room. 

                                (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                        President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

July 24, 2023                                                Member

*YP*